> From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Date: Fri May 31, 2002 7:44 am > >Subject: Re: and so it goes... > > >How many Lurkers or people who only read the yahoo! archive are being > >driven away that you don't know about? > > I give this a 6 or 7.
This is a nuetral question, which addresses only a partial flaw in a statement you were making. You were ingoring this demographic. > How would you rate this: > > How many people are getting killed by guns because some firearm owners > are ignorant about firearms, that you don't know about? Perfect example of Natural Selection in effect. 5. Plenty of people. How many *more* are protected by fireams? The whole point of the 2nd amendment is a check on all three branches of the government. One of the first things the nazi's did when they got power was to take away the guns. > > From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Tue May 28, 2002 11:48 am > > Subject: Re: James Mark Constantino > > > From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:30:23AM +0100, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > > > You don't seem to understand that keeping one community member while > > > > offending probably a lot more is NOT worth it. > > > > > > There is little that would be more "worth it". It would demonstrate a > > > flexible, civilized, tolerant society, that people could handle being > > > sometimes offended without over reacting and attempting to impose their > > > moral values on another. > > > > > > > Let me point you at the laws on online game game worlds. Soem of em > > > > are highly relevant- > > > > > > This is not a game. > > > That's not the point. It's about the psychology of communities, which is > > very relevant. Some of the points this document made could be mapped > > directly onto other types of online communities/forums &c. > > The laws in question were being used to support banning Wilbur. Your > words therefore look, again, like a 6 or 7 to me. You were ignoring these 'laws' out of hand, without delving for their possible relevance to the issue. And the laws are mostly truisms for group behaviors, that have been expressed in the past. I made no statements about wilber. I pointed out the flaw in your logic that 'this is not a game' when the point of the laws were infact about communities. I made no statements to the effect that this was the case here, or that actions should/not be taken. The fact that wilbers actions may have been mapped to several of those laws does not mean that I endorsed their application or that wilber should be blocked.
